Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. BOWMAN

February 15, 1957

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
v.
FRED J. BOWMAN, PRESIDENT, WILSON ATHLETIC GOODS MANUFACTURING COMPANY.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hoffman, District Judge.

The Federal Trade Commission has filed in this court a petition for enforcement of its subpoena duces tecum directed against the defendant, Fred J. Bowman, President of the Wilson Athletic Goods Manufacturing Company, under Section 9 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 722, 15 U.S.C.A. § 49. The defendant has resisted enforcement upon the grounds that the subpoena is beyond the power of the Commission to issue and that it is unreasonable and oppressive.

The dispute arises in the course of a proceeding commenced by the Commission against A.G. Spalding & Bros., charging Spalding with a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 18, resulting from its purchase of a competitor, Rawlings Manufacturing Company. The issues as framed in that proceeding center around the question whether the effect of this purchase may be "substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly" within the meaning of the Clayton Act and the allegations of the complaint.

Seeking evidence concerning the effect of the purchase, the Commission issued its subpoena against the defendant, as President of the Wilson Athletic Goods Manufacturing Company, a competitor in the field. As summarized in the Commission's memorandum filed in support of this petition, the subpoena required the defendant to appear to testify and to produce documents showing:

1. Defendant's production for the past four years as shown by compilations in defendant's possession and any related documents;

2. Athletic goods manufactured by the Wilson company by units for the years 1952 through 1955;

3. Sales by the Wilson company of athletic goods by units, dollars, and price class of products during the years 1952 through 1955;

4. Purchases by the Wilson company of athletic goods for resale by units, dollars, and price class for the past four years;

5. All patents on athletic goods or production thereof which the Wilson company owns, the licensees under the patents, and the royalties paid to the Wilson company since January 1, 1952;

6. All patents on athletic goods or production thereof owned by others of which the Wilson company is the licensee, the license agreement, and the royalties paid by the Wilson company since January 1, 1952;

7. All agreements between the Wilson company or any subsidiary with any athlete or athletic organization for the use, gift, sale, or endorsement of any of the Wilson company's athletic goods during the last four years;

8. Catalogs and price lists of the Wilson company for the last four years; and

9. Names and addresses of suppliers of the Wilson company who supplied more than 5% of the Wilson company's total purchases of raw material used in the production of athletic goods, including the units and the dollar value thereof.

The defendant Bowman personally appeared in response to the subpoena, but refused to supply the requested documents, claiming that the Commission lacked power to compel their production; that production would impose an unreasonable burden upon the Wilson company by requiring it to transport voluminous records from some thirty-two establishments in twenty-nine cities to the place of hearing, with consequent disruption of its business; and that compliance with the subpoena would involve disclosure of confidential business information and trade secrets. Upon the defendant's refusal to comply, the Commission filed this application for the aid of the court in compelling production of the requested documents.

The first point of argument raises the question whether the Federal Trade Commission, or this court in its support, is empowered to order the defendant to produce any documents at all. The defendant urges that the only charge of any violation of law is directed against A.G. Spalding & Bros., and that the Wilson company is not being proceeded against. It follows, according to the argument, that the Wilson company, being neither a party nor a prospective party to any proceeding but only a potential witness, is not subject to a subpoena duces tecum. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.